Rugby players to sue for brain damage!

[LE18]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/pro ... palmer-cup

Some insight in here as to what is needed for a competition to use the HIA temp replacement rule.

Thanks Tiglon, the point Im really trying to make is that here in England the Women do not have HIA testing, its too expensive, or so I read recently.

[Tiglon]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/pro ... palmer-cup

Some insight in here as to what is needed for a competition to use the HIA temp replacement rule.

Thanks Tiglon, the point Im really trying to make is that here in England the Women do not have HIA testing, its too expensive, or so I read recently.

I think that article is saying that to use the HIA rule you need to have video replays to assess the incident (amongst other things, such as medical teams with specific qualifications), which most women's matches don't have access to, hence their inability to use it, so they play under amateur rules.

[nasher]

I have just read comments on the bbc by bill sweeney of the RFU that I find them a little unbelievable. To think the language used causes dementia is incredulous.
There is a major concern about head injuries and it must not be treated lightly.

[jgriffin]

I have just read comments on the bbc by bill sweeney of the RFU that I find them a little unbelievable. To think the language used causes dementia is incredulous.
There is a major concern about head injuries and it must not be treated lightly.

Bill Sweeney seems to be a bit of a dxxx frankly. Should be talking up constructive changes.

[mol2]

Ultimately rugby is a contact sport and head injuries and their consequences are part of the risks of playing.

The sport continues to make changes to reduce the risks but to sue because of unforeseen consequences of playing a game you chose to do seems fundamentally wrong.
What next boxers suing their opponent for hitting them?

That is not to make light of it, nor to look at ways to make the game safer but there will always be risks.

I am equally perplexed by what is going on in soccer where direct head trauma is relatively rare and the evidence on the impact of heading the ball limited. Citing a number of octogenarian players who have developed dementia is not the same as scientific proof. Many non-sports men and women will have dementia to an extent by the time they get to 80. The press portraying a former international's dementia as being down to heading the ball when the type of dementia being discussed was a type found in alcoholics.

[ourla]

The legal case will in all likelihood result in a settlement. It's a means to an end and isn't an attack on the sport and authorities.

Worth reading the 15 points the players have asked to improve:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/news/th ... r-BB1bKRhr

[Cardiff Tig]

Ultimately rugby is a contact sport and head injuries and their consequences are part of the risks of playing.

The sport continues to make changes to reduce the risks but to sue because of unforeseen consequences of playing a game you chose to do seems fundamentally wrong.
What next boxers suing their opponent for hitting them?

That is not to make light of it, nor to look at ways to make the game safer but there will always be risks.

You're right that there will always be risks with a contact sport.

But the difference here is that the world rugby, RFU and clubs knew about concussion a long time ago and yet it allowed concussed players to make decisions about whether they stay on the pitch or not, or be selected for matches when they haven't recovered. And allowed the England and club training sessions to be "brutal".

Saying that it's down to the players choices is just wrong. The coaches/club doctors etc are the ones that decide who plays etc. The pressure is on players from their employer to be avaliable so the club/country can win matches. It's should never be their personal choice to play through injury.

The medical teams should be ruling out any player that is going to do more harm to an injury by playing, head or otherwise, no matter what the player thinks is the best idea.

[Tiglon]

There will always be risks (in any occupation) but it's the employer's (or organiser's) responsibility to take reasonable steps to minimise the risk.

To say they knew what they signed up for is probably not true. 10/15 years ago, when a player took a blow to the head, how many were told "this could cause you serious brain trauma if you keep playing" and how many were told "you'll be fine son, get up and carry on if you feel ok"? Even the former is not sufficient, it needs to be "I'm not going to let you play on because it could cause you serious brain trauma - you're coming off and you don't have a choice".

[Scott1]

Not much better today tbf! Ringrose and O Brien clash heads for Leinster and O brien goes off and stays off after a HIA. Ringrose plays on and then starts feeling the effects and goes off anyway. Why the hell havnt we got mandatory HIA for any head clashes?